On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:00:27PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2005-06-14T13:44:34, Christophe Varoqui <christophe varoqui free fr> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure you understand this patch is rather invasive. I'm clearly
> > reluctant to maintain backward compatibility on this point.
> >
> > Distributors assuming the burden of it is not nice either.
>
> Yes, I looked at how much the code diverged, and got pretty frightened
> to be maintaining such a patch.
>
> > Have you pondered backporting the uevent kernel patch : it seems
> > rather safe (from my seat, that is :)
>
> That might indeed be the cleanest solution. What exactly is needed for
> it to work for multipath-tools?
>
For now only the following events :
- block dev add
- block dev remove
When transport uevents get implemented we may want to use them too, but it is not the case in HEAD.
Regards,
cvaroqui